At the starting point of the article, the author considers the current process of fragmenting ethics into numerous special ethics as a process of destroying ethics as a philosophical discipline. He relates this to the historical failure of ethics, which due to categorical limitations could not address the challenges of the advanced scientific-technical civilisation, resulting in an “ethical vacuum” (H. Jonas). In response to the ethical vacuum, a number of ethical initiatives have emerged which the author, according to the effects (...) on the rehabilitation of the role of traditional ethics and on the creation of a new orientational framework, classifies on a destructive and a productive line. On the productive line of overcoming the ethical vacuum, bioethics has emerged which, along with other ethical projects, has created a new orientational atmosphere that the author calls “a new ethical culture”. On the destructive line, along with the inflation of special ethics, a special form of destruction has emerged in terms of implanting “applied ethics”, which the author refers to as a nonsensical concept, into the fabric of traditional ethics. Then, the author presents three main problems of applied ethics. The first is of a substantial nature and consists in the fact that applied ethics does not have and in principle cannot have unquestionable norms as an object of application. The second main problem is of a methodological nature and consists in the inappropriateness and non-acceptance of deductivism as a model of applying ethical norms to practice. The third main problem is of a usage nature and consists in developing the myth of the practicality of applied ethics. The author concludes that applied ethics is neither an ethical concept nor an ethical project but a market brand which on the ethical terrain turns out to be nonsense. In the conclusion of the article, the author argues that applied ethics became an institution of ethical absurdity the moment it, as an empty marketing label, took over the vacancy of the object of application and the role of general ethics for an unrelated and undefined conglomerate of special ethics transformed into its branches. (shrink)

The author considers Rousseau’s concept of the general will to be the categorical groundwork of the modern understanding of democracy, and its transposition from the natural-legal to the social context, as well as its being built into the legal foundation of both social and political life to be the turning point at which the history of democracy is divided into two epochs. In the first section of the article the author reconstructs the prehistory of the concept of democracy based on (...) Herod, Plato and Aristotle’s views. He then identifies the significant changes in the concept and true role of democracy, which emerged in the century of the French Revolution, and differentiates between the concepts of general and common will in order to establish the moral dimension of democracy, in the light of which he focuses on Rousseau’s political philosophy. In the final section the author turns to partitocracy as one of the possible perversion forms of democracy. In doing so, he limits himself to the “transitional type” of systematic partitocracy, which emerged within the framework of the historical phenomenon of Post-Communism. Within this context, as an alternative theoretical approach to explaining Post-Communism – i.e. the prevalent theory of transition – the author opposes the theory of Post-Communist chaos. (shrink)

Der Verfasser bezeichnet den Begriff des allgemeinen Willens bei Rousseau als den kategorialen Grundstein des modernen Demokratieverständnisses und betrachtet das Transponieren dieses Begriffs aus dem naturrechtlichen in den sozialen Horizont sowie seine Verwandlung zur Legitimationsgrundlage des gesellschaftlichen und politischen Lebens als Wendepunkt, an dem sich die Geschichte der Demokratie in zwei Epochen teilt. Im ersten Teil des Artikels wird anhand von Ausführungen bei Herodot, Platon und Aristoteles die Vorgeschichte des Demokratiebegriffes rekonstruiert. Sodann führt der Autor an, zu welchen wesentlichen Veränderungen (...) es im Jahrhundert der Französischen Revolution in der Konzeption und der wirklichen Rolle der Demokratie gekommen ist; er grenzt den allgemeinen vom gemeinsamen Willen ab, um die moralische Dimension der Demokratie zu sichern, und konzentriert vor diesem Hintergrund seine Aufmerksamkeit auf die politische Philosophie Rousseaus. Im Schlussteil nimmt der Autor Stellung zur Partitokratie als einer der die Demokratie entstellenden Formen, wobei er sich auf den „Transitionstyp” der Systempartitokratie beschränkt, die im Gefüge des historischen Phänomens des Postkommunismus auf den Plan tritt. In diesem Kontext wird der dominierenden Transitionstheorie die Theorie des postkommunistischen Chaos als eines alternativen theoretischen Ansatzes bei der Erläuterung des Geschehens nach dem Zerfall des Kommunismus gegenübergestellt. (shrink)

Le concept de volonté générale de Rousseau est présenté par l`auteur comme le fondement catégoriel de la compréhension moderne de la démocratie, et sa transposition d`un contexte naturel légal dans un contexte social, ainsi que la légitimation de la vie sociale et politique est prise comme une ligne de partage qui scinde l`histoire de la démocratie en deux époques. Dans la première partie de l`article l`auteur se base sur les explications de Hérode, Platon et Aristote pour reconstruire l`histoire ancienne du (...) concept de démocratie. Il passe ensuite aux changements essentiels dans la conception et le rôle réel de la démocratie qui se sont manifestés au siècle de la Révolution française, il distingue la volonté générale de la volonté commune pour établir la dimension morale de la démocratie, et sous cet aspect il se concentre sur la philosophie politique de Rousseau. En conclusion il se penche sur la partitocratie qui n`est qu`une forme d`aberration de la démocratie tout en se limitant au type transitoire de la partitocratie systématique qui apparaît dans le cadre du phénomène historique du postcommunisme. Dans ce contexte, à la théorie dominante de la transition l`auteur oppose la théorie du chaos postcommuniste qui est envisagée comme une approche théorique alternative de l`explication des événements postcommunistes. (shrink)

Raspravu o pluralizmu u području filozofije autor otvara razlikovanjem institucionalne i supstancionalne razine filozofskog pluralizma. Dok se institucionalni pluralizam odnosi na vanjske uvjete i okolnosti mišljenja i obilježava otvorenost i neutralnost filozofskih institucija, supstancionalni pluralizam izražava odnos prema istini kao imanentnom cilju svakog mišljenja. U tom odnosu pluralizam gubi svaki smisao, jer se istina može pluralizirati samo u svojim aspektima, pa se, sukladno tome, i supstancijalni pluralizam može odraziti kao pluralizam perspektiva . Pluriperspektivizam se, u razlici prema relativističkom perspektivizmu, pobliže (...) određuje kao integrativni perspektivizam, odnosno kao interaktivno povezivanje perspektiva u metodološkom obrascu stvaranja orijentacijskog znanja. Paradigma orijentacijskog znanja, koja se artikulira u protuteži prema monoperspektivizmu novovjeke znanosti, postaje tako duhovnim obilježjem nove epohe. U članku se ekspliciraju kategorijalna razlikovanja "objektne i smisaone istine" , te s druge strane "uporabnog i orijentacijskog znanja" , kako bi se prijelom svjetskopovijesnih epoha mogao izraziti ne samo sredstvima teorije istine nego istodobno obrazložiti i na epistemološkoj razini.Die Diskussion über den Pluralismus im Bereich der Philosophie eröffnet der Autor mit der Unter-scheidung zwischen einer institutionalen und einer substantiellen Ebene innerhalb des philosophischenPluralismus. Während sich der institutionale Pluralismus auf die äußeren Bedingungenund Umstände des Denkens bezieht sowie die Offenheit und Neutralität philosophischer Institutionencharakterisiert, bringt der substantielle Pluralismus den Bezug zur Wahrheit als das immanenteZiel allen Denkens zum Ausdruck. In diesem Bezug verliert der Pluralismus jeglichen Sinn,da die Wahrheit nur in ihren Aspekten pluralisiert werden kann, sodass demgemäß der substantiellePluralismus nur als ein Pluralismus von Perspektiven vertretbar ist. ImUnterschied zum relativistischen Perspektivismus wird der Pluriperspektivismus als ein integrativerPerspektivismus bestimmt bzw. als ein interaktives Verknüpfen von Perspektiven nach einem metho-dologischen Verfahren zur Erzeugung von Orientierungswissen. Das Paradigma des Orientierungs-wissens, das sich als Gegengewicht zum Monoperspektivismus der neuzeitlichen Wissenschaft artikuliert,wird so zum geistigen Merkmal der neuen Epoche. Der Verfasser expliziert die kategorialeUnterscheidung zwischen »Objekt- und Sinnwahrheit« einerseits und zwischen»Verfügungs- und Orientierungswissen« andererseits, welche die weltgeschichtlicheEpochenwende nicht nur mit den Mitteln der Wahrheitstheorie zum Ausdruck bringen, sondernsie zugleich auch auf epistemologischer Ebene begründen soll. (shrink)

The author considers the current process of fragmenting ethics into numerous special ethics at the starting point of the article as a process of destroying ethics as a philosophical discipline. He relates this to the historical failure of ethics which due to categorical limitations could not address the challenges of the advanced scientific-technical civilisation, resulting in an “ethical vacuum”. In response to the ethical vacuum, a number of ethical initiatives have emerged which the author, according to the effects on the (...) rehabilitation of the role of traditional ethics and on the creation of a new orientation framework, classifies on a destructive and productive line. On the productive line of overcoming the ethical vacuum, bioethics has emerged which, along with other ethical projects, has created a new orientation atmosphere that the author calls “a new ethical culture”. On the destructive line, along with the inflation of special ethics, a special form of destruction has emerged in terms of implanting “applied ethics”, which the author refers to as a nonsensical concept, into the fabric of traditional ethics. Then the author presents three main problems of applied ethics. The first is of a substantive nature and consists in the fact that applied ethics does not have and in principle cannot have unquestionable norms as an object of application. The second main problem is of a methodological nature and consists in the inappropriateness and non-acceptance of deductivism as a model of applying ethical norms to practice. The third main problem is of a practical nature and consists in developing the myth of the practicality of applied ethics. The author concludes that applied ethics is neither an ethical concept nor an ethical project but a market brand which on the ethical plane turns out to be nonsense. In the point of the article, the author argues that applied ethics became an institution of ethical absurdity the moment it, as an empty marketing label, took over the vacancy of the object of application and the role of general ethics for an unrelated and undefined conglomerate of special ethics transformed into its branches. (shrink)